Just as all
churches establish a statement of faith which embodies their understanding
of Scripture, they also formulate a theology of church government and
operate according to that understanding. When Hope Chapel was founded it
was established with an “elder rule” style of government, because I
believed it best reflected what the Bible teaches. Since all who join
churches need to understand the governmental framework of that church, we
have posted our position on the church website, we’ve published it in the
Newcomers’ Handout, and I reinforce it from time to time in sermons.

Many modern
churches employ what is known as a “congregational rule” form of
government. It is one of three common positions taken by Evangelicals
today. Although I do not believe that the congregational rule style of
government has its roots in Scripture, I do understand the rationale for
it and respect those who hold it.

I am
familiar with the arguments offered by those who believe that
congregations should elect their elders, but thus far I am unconvinced of
their position. Without engaging in a lengthy dissertation, let me state
briefly why, historically, biblically, and rationally.

If
congregational rule was a principle taught to the New Testament church we
should expect to find it practiced by congregations in the first three
centuries. However, mention of congregations electing their elders was
completely absent in church history for the first 1500 years. All
extra-biblical sources (particularly the Early Fathers) indicate that the
early church saw their elders appointed by others in spiritual authority.
Congregations picked their own deacons, but left the selection of elders
to those already in spiritual authority. According to the historical
record, congregational rule dates not to the first century, but to the
sixteenth century. In fact, the historical accounts of church life are so
clear that few, if any, dispute the record.

The first
Christians to believe they had the authority to elect their spiritual
leaders were the Anabaptists in England, in the middle 1500’s. They had
witnessed the authoritarian rule of the Catholic church and had
experienced firsthand the abuse of authority of the Church of England, so
decided they would form fellowships which would limit opportunities for
abuse of power. (Quite understandable!) Giving authority to the
congregation to elect leaders was the way they solved this. As others
broke with the Church of England they too, tried this new form of church
government. Consequently, many of the early American colonists started
churches which elected their leaders. The style of government employed by
so many modern churches finds its roots in the practices of the
Anabaptists.

Some would
suggest that the Anabaptists must have been like other reformers, and were
merely returning to what was properly biblical. But if that were so, it
would mean that the entire early church forsook proper practice while the
apostles were still alive. We see by Paul’s letter to the Galatian church
that individual churches started to go doctrinally astray while the
apostles were still around, but to suggest that every single one of the
churches went off in the area of government before the end of the first
century is too much to believe. Getting off base in this area of
leadership in the last half of the first century would have been
especially difficult, since the church was still overseen by the remaining
apostles and their disciples.

If I had
never heard of congregational rule and merely went to the Scriptures to
discover how elders were selected, I would conclude that Paul and Barnabas
drew upon their spiritual insights, and chose the elders upon which they
laid hands and appointed to office (Acts 14:23); Titus was instructed by
Paul to do the same (Tit 1:5). Based on the English as well as the
Greek, I would conclude it meant that they personally selected them – not
ratified the selection of the congregation. I understand the Baptist
opinion that Paul and Barnabas must have appointed to office the church
leaders already elected by the congregation, but it appears that they are
reading into the text a modern view of church government. I am familiar
with their arguments, but I could not draw their same conclusions were I
merely reading the text without their frame of reference, especially in
light of God’s established patterns of authority.

If God
intended in the Church that followers elect the ones who would lead them,
it would not have followed the pattern of authority that He previously
established in Scripture. Moses selected the men who assisted him, the
civil government of Israel did not consist of individuals elected by
popular vote, and priests were not elected to the priesthood. In the
hierarchy of the family, leadership was not a democratic effort – heads
were solely responsible for their leadership, ie: Adam listened to Eve’s
input, but he alone was responsible for his decision to eat the fruit, and
he alone was the one who was said to have introduced sin to the world (Rom
5:12). The New Testament church itself was established by apostles who had
been chosen for their office, not elected to the position. And when
the apostles sought to replace Judas they did not have a vote involving
all the other disciples, but they alone made the selection. So when we
read that elders in the congregations were appointed by those in spiritual
authority it would follow that they were personally selected by them.

The men
mentioned in Acts 6:1-6, which were chosen by their fellow
congregation members, were selected to administrate a meal ministry – not
assume positions of spiritual oversight. In fact, the apostles
specifically distinguished between the lesser practical duty of
what they called “waiting on tables” and their own spiritual
leadership duties.

Acts 6:2 So the Twelve gathered all the
disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the
ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers,
choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and
wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will
give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."

To suggest
God intended that New Testament congregations have the custom of electing
their spiritual leaders would be a convolution of authority, unmatched by
any other authority structure in the Bible. It does not even follow
logically that God would plan for followers to have authority over those
who lead them. In that scenario, leaders would have no real authority to
lead – the followers who put them into office would have it. The
congregation effectively becomes the “boss” who dictates to their
“employee” his duties and his limits. This theology, contrary to Hebrews
13:17, says that the leader must obey his followers or they will remove
him from office. In fact, in that arrangement, since the followers are in
charge, it becomes their duty to evaluate and discuss among themselves the
job done by their leaders. What the Bible calls slander, gossip, and
divisiveness, would merely be a “job review.” Such authority granted to
members in the last few centuries has given way to the favorite Sunday
lunch in congregational rule churches – “roast preacher.” Sadly, gossip,
divisiveness, and splits are often synonymous with congregational rule
churches.

To propose
that congregations have authority over their leaders, would contradict
Paul’s admonition to Pastor Timothy about leaders accused of sin. It is
precisely because the congregation did not have authority over its
leaders that Timothy, not the congregation, was instructed to handle the
evaluation and discipline of his fellow leaders (1 Tim 5:19-20). Scripture
makes it clear that elders rule over (hegeomai) the
flock (Heb 13:7, 17, 24). Is it logical to suggest that those who are to
be ruled over actually have authority over the ones who have authority to
rule them?

Heb 13:7 Remember those who rule over you …

Heb 13:17 Obey those who rule over you …

Heb 13:24 Greet all those who rule over you
…

Consider
the account of Diotrephes. He was an overseer who apparently had divided
himself from the apostles, and was using his pastoral authority to kick
out of the church everyone who did not stand with him. If, in fact,
congregations had authority over their leaders, then why didn’t the
apostle John instruct the congregation to vote Diotrephes out of office
when he became power hungry? Certainly, if the congregation had authority
over their leaders, then they would have been told to take charge of
him.

3 John 1:9 I wrote to the church, but
Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive
us. 10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does,
prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he
himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to,
putting them out of the church.

This brief
discussion is likely inadequate to answer all questions raised in the mind
of every reader. However, my goal has not been to present an exhaustive,
irrefutable justification for Hope Chapel’s style of government, but
merely to help all potential family members understand the biblical basis
for our governmental framework. Such an understanding will promote unity
among the church family, as well as bring the blessings found by all who
live by biblical guidelines.